Report weighs environmental effects of Northern Pass

Overhead lines would have more impact, cost less

A long-awaited environmental report on the proposed Northern Pass power transmission project in New Hampshire says the proposal could have a negative effect on tourism, wildlife and property values, but would cost less than other alternatives.

A long-awaited environmental report on the proposed Northern Pass power transmission project in New Hampshire says the proposal could have a negative effect on tourism, wildlife and property values, but would cost less than other alternatives.

The draft report from the U.S. Department of Energy was released Tuesday. It considered the proposal, along with 10 alternatives, including an underground line buried along existing roadway corridors like Interstate 93.

Public comments will now be accepted on the report before a final study is prepared.

Northern Pass is Eversource Energy's proposal to construct a 187-mile electrical transmission line across New Hampshire to carry 1,200 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power 1.2 million homes -- to power-hungry southern New England markets.

The report confirmed what many in the North Country believe -- that the “primary impact…would be to visual resources.” The report estimated that burying the lines would be anywhere from $1.8 to $2.1 billion, doubling the cost of the Northern Pass Project.

The report also said burial would result in higher property tax revenue and lower negative impact to surrounding property values.

However, environmental groups said that if the project moves forward, underground is the way to go.

"From our standpoint, what we've read so far of the EIS suggests that that is eminently possible, and offers many advantages over the overhead route,” said Jack Savage of the Society for Protection of NH Forests.

The report concluded that compared to alternatives, the proposal would result in more vegetation being removed, possibly affect endangered animals and have a visual impact that could affect tourism and property values.

Alternatives that would bury the transmission line would have more limited environmental effects but would have a greater risk of exposing contaminated soil or groundwater during construction, according to the report.

Because the Northern Pass proposal would cost less than the alternatives, local cities and towns would collect less tax revenue from construction costs. The report said the municipalities could also see less property tax revenue in the future if the project hurts property values.

But the main proposal also has a greater energy delivery capacity than most of the alternatives. While the Department of Energy acknowledged that the Northern Pass Project could hurt tourism, it also laid out the benefits, including the reduction of wholesale electricity costs in New Hampshire by $21.6 million per year, compared to a reduction of about $18 million for most of the alternatives.

The Northern Pass proposal would also likely reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 8 percent across the region, compared to a reduction of 7 percent for most of the underground alternatives. Eversource said that about 98 percent of the electricity carried on the transmission line will be hydropower.

In a written statement, Northern Pass said it's planning to review the report and will provide an update on any changes it plans to make as a result.

"We have spent the last two years listening to the people of New Hampshire, and we recognize the need to enhance the project in a way that will balance the economics of a large-scale energy project with the need to minimize impacts to New Hampshire's landscape," the statement said.

It also said that the route could still change as they review the report and continued public input.

"Certainly, we've been talking with stakeholders over the last few years, and we're going to be taking this analysis into consideration as we consider a balanced approach moving forward,” said Lauren Collins, a spokesperson for Northern Pass Project.

Public hearings on the draft report will be held, after a 90-day public comment period, by the Department of Energy on Oct. 6 in Concord, Oct. 7 in Whitefield and Oct. 8 in Plymouth. The exact times and locations have not been announced.

The U.S. Forest Service will use the report as it determines whether to issue a special use permit to allow the project to build through the White Mountain National Forest.